I am by no means an expert in tax law, but I think I understand this:
You inherent stock worth for simplicity sake $100 billion at the time of death and it rises by 5% to $105 billion, you only pay capital gains tax on $5 billion
Now, here is my question - say rather than a 5% increase, the stock decreases by 5% - does that mean the heirs can sell the stock, pocket $95 billion dollars and take a $5 billion dollar capital loss which means that not only would they be getting $95 billion tax free, we'd be actually paying the heirs to take it
I am an expert in NOTHING to do with money, and my answer is - probably. I mean - why not? It seems farfetched, but it benefits rich fuckwads. So someone has at least proposed it at some point, I am sure.
Or we could move to a mark-to-market system where wealthy investors with large untapped investments pay tax on gains at the end of the year whether or not they are realized or not. So, if a person has $100M dollars in a hedge fund on Jan. 1 and doesn't touch it, and the value of that account on Dec 31 is $110M, they pay capital gains on 10M. That way when the account is inherited, the heirs can have the basis of the value of the account because the gains were taxed all along.
Yes. The heirs' basis in that stock would be the current value on the day they inherited it, so if they sold it for a less than that, they can take the loss.
Beyond a certain year, as you look back they can report the shares as "uncovered", as in uncovered by the regulation that basis must be reported on the 1099. Then they don't have to include the basis. Finding basis for stock that people have had since they were born in 1947 is one of my nightmares.
this is just part of biden's evil plot to make moscow mitch tell all of his poor white trash base that it would be really bad for them if jeff bezos' kids have to pay their fair share. that's gonna go over well
I had a run of Fantastic Four from #9 through #118 (origins of Dr. Doom, the Silver Surfer, etc.) with a lot of early Spidermans and Hulks and so on (not much DC). For years I assumed that my mom had ditched the big box of comics at some point and vaguely resented it, but then once she told me that she had actually moved that box of comics, until in the new house it was destroyed in a disastrous basement flood which I do recall.
not to nitpick, but it's grey not gray poupon. don't know why the british need a different spelling for the color, or colour, but they do. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
I am by no means an expert in tax law, but I think I understand this:
You inherent stock worth for simplicity sake $100 billion at the time of death and it rises by 5% to $105 billion, you only pay capital gains tax on $5 billion
Now, here is my question - say rather than a 5% increase, the stock decreases by 5% - does that mean the heirs can sell the stock, pocket $95 billion dollars and take a $5 billion dollar capital loss which means that not only would they be getting $95 billion tax free, we'd be actually paying the heirs to take it
Nice work if you can get it
I am an expert in NOTHING to do with money, and my answer is - probably. I mean - why not? It seems farfetched, but it benefits rich fuckwads. So someone has at least proposed it at some point, I am sure.
Anything for the rich in this shithole nation.
[bows]
As I've noted before, with rare exceptions, all income should be taxed . . . because it's all (duh) income . . .
Or we could move to a mark-to-market system where wealthy investors with large untapped investments pay tax on gains at the end of the year whether or not they are realized or not. So, if a person has $100M dollars in a hedge fund on Jan. 1 and doesn't touch it, and the value of that account on Dec 31 is $110M, they pay capital gains on 10M. That way when the account is inherited, the heirs can have the basis of the value of the account because the gains were taxed all along.
Yes. The heirs' basis in that stock would be the current value on the day they inherited it, so if they sold it for a less than that, they can take the loss.
Beyond a certain year, as you look back they can report the shares as "uncovered", as in uncovered by the regulation that basis must be reported on the 1099. Then they don't have to include the basis. Finding basis for stock that people have had since they were born in 1947 is one of my nightmares.
I guess it's a good thing Mom threw away all my Marvel Comics I bought in the early 60's when they first came out while I was away at college.
Not yet, but they're "reviewing" their indefinite ban. He'll get back on, and keep lying (and fundraising).
But what condition are they in? Maybe Dok plays with them a lot.
This post raises an important question: How is Kid Zoom doing these days?
OH NOEZ! WEALTH REDISTRIBOOSHON! TEH HORRORZ!!!
Yuck.
this is just part of biden's evil plot to make moscow mitch tell all of his poor white trash base that it would be really bad for them if jeff bezos' kids have to pay their fair share. that's gonna go over well
I had a run of Fantastic Four from #9 through #118 (origins of Dr. Doom, the Silver Surfer, etc.) with a lot of early Spidermans and Hulks and so on (not much DC). For years I assumed that my mom had ditched the big box of comics at some point and vaguely resented it, but then once she told me that she had actually moved that box of comics, until in the new house it was destroyed in a disastrous basement flood which I do recall.
not to nitpick, but it's grey not gray poupon. don't know why the british need a different spelling for the color, or colour, but they do. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...